Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table—Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,

Northallerton Urban District Council Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Bill [Lords],

Coventry Corporation Bill [Lords],

London County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords],

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Bill [Lords],

The King Edward the Seventh Welsh National Memorial Association Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS AND ELECTRICITY (CHARGES).

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, as it is the declared policy of His Majesty's Government to keep down the cost of living, he will take immediate, drastic, and retrospective action to obviate increases in the charges of lighting and heating companies, which in some cases amount to several hundred per cent., and which cause hardship and distress to many consumers, who have no alternative means of light or heat?

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Andrew Duncan): I am not aware of increases in charges for gas of the order suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, but if he will forward to me particulars of any cases that he has in mind relating to gas charges, I will gladly look into them. Any Question relating to electricity prices should be addressed to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Transport.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SHIPPING.

REQUISITIONED VESSELS.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Shipping whether the fullest consideration was given when the terms of payment for requisitioning were fixed, to the necessity of British shipping being in a strong financial position on the termination of hostilities, to enable them successfully to compete with foreign shipping?

The Minister of Shipping (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Yes, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the statements on this subject which were made by my predecessor and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary during the course of the Debate on Shipping on 18th March last.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the requisitioning rate will give ship-owners a sufficient amount to enable them to build up their reserve for replacement, and at the same time give them a reasonable return on their capital?

Mr. Hudson: I think that is a point which must be present in all our minds when we are negotiating these details.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Shipping whether he can now make a statement on the negotiations in connection with the rates for hire of requisitioned vessels?

Mr. Hudson: Proposals resulting from negotiations with the representative bodies were recently put before their constituent members and are now under their consideration.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the case that an agreement has been reached with the liner companies; and cannot hon. Members be informed of the terms of that agreement?

Mr. Hudson: Briefly the position is that the cargo liner companies have expressed their agreement in principle but there are subsidiary details, which are still being negotiated.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is highly undesirable to have discontent in the shipping industry over this matter and that it is highly desirable to have a speedy termination of these negotiations?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir, I am doing and will do everything in my power to see that they are concluded as quickly as possible.

Mr. Denville: asked the Minister of Shipping whether he can now give an answer to the letter from the hon. Member for Newcastle, Central, dated 12th February, 1940, on the subject of compensation to traders on the requisitioning of ships?

Mr. Hudson: As I have informed my hon. Friend, the issues which he raised affect other Departments besides the Ministry of Shipping. They are at present under active consideration.

Mr. Denville: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that this is a very urgent matter, to save certain ship-owners from going bankrupt?

Mr. Kirkwood: Is compensation to traders for the requisitioning of ships to be comparable with the compensation which is given to the working class of this country whose sons have been commandeered for the Army?

Mr. Hudson: The question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Denville) had reference to increased charges for certain goods caused by vessels being diverted from one port to another.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it the case that more value is being attached to ships than to human lives?

Mr. Hudson: That is not so.

MERCHANT NAVY (WOOLLEN COMFORTS).

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Minister of Shipping whether he will consider exempting woollen comforts coming into this country for the benefit of the seafarers of the Mercantile Marine from

freightage by the Ministry, on the same basis as comforts for the fighting services?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: In any arrangements for the free carriage of comforts from overseas no distinction is made between comforts for the merchant navy and those destined for the fighting services.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Am I right in supposing that both have to pay freightage; and would it be possible to exempt them from that charge?

Mr. Hudson: They are both being carried free.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend quite certain about that? Is it the case that no distinction is made between the two?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir.

COAL CARGOES (WALES).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Shipping how many vessels are in South Wales ports awaiting coal cargoes?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: This morning the number of ships awaiting bunkers or coal cargoes is reported to be 14.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why 14 vessels should be awaiting cargoes; and is it not the case that in the last two months many more vessels have been awaiting cargoes?

Mr. Hudson: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that this figure represents a considerable improvement over the situation which prevailed a few weeks ago. I understand that the slight delays which are still occurring are due to the shortage of coal.

Mr. Shinwell: Can we have an assurance that this very important matter is well in hand?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir.

NEW VESSELS (CREWS' ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Minister of Shipping the nature of the accommodation for the crews of new vessels being built to the order of the Ministry; and whether it includes all the latest improvements?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The Merchant Shipbuilding Department of the Admiralty are embodying in vessels which are being built for the Ministry of Shipping crew accommodation fully up to the standard required by the Board of Trade Instructions as to the Survey of Masters' and Crew spaces, which were issued in 1937.

Mr. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the accommodation on these new vessels is uniform and is similarly situated in vessels of different types?

Mr. Hudson: I understand that it is up to the standard which was laid down by agreement between the various parties.

ALLIED SHIPPING (CONTROL).

Mr. James Hall: asked the Minister of Shipping whether he is in a position to make a statement on the arrangements that have been made between the British and French Governments for the control of Allied shipping?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The machinery which has been set up for the co-ordination of the economic war efforts of this country and France includes an Anglo-French Permanent Executive Committee for Shipping. Its function is to provide for the allocation of the tonnage at the disposal of the Allies (including any neutral tonnage) to secure that the agreed import programmes are carried out. This Committee has been in operation since the beginning of December last.

Mr. Hall: Are we to understand that the Mercantile Marines of the two countries will be brought under unified control?

Mr. Hudson: As far as it is a question of agreement on how they can be worked in order to assure an agreed Allied import programme, the answer is "Yes."

SHIPBROKING FIRMS.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Shipping how many ship broking firms have gone out of business, and how many clerks engaged in ship broking have been rendered unemployed through the operation of the Ministry; and whether he can now state what he proposes to do in respect of the representations made by ship broking firms?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I have no figures as regards the first part of the hon. Member's Question. As regards the second part, the representative bodies have before them proposals already outlined to the House.

Mr. Shinwell: As many of these businesses have had to be discontinued as a result of Government action, is there not an obligation on the Government to come to their assistance in some way?

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member knows that this is a very difficult question. I propose to give it my personal consideration.

Mr. R. Gibson: Are these clerks instructed to register at the Central Registry of the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Hudson: I would like notice of that Question.

MUNITIONS CARRYING (PAYMENT OF CREWS).

Mr. Windsor: asked the Minister of Shipping what extra payment is being made to seamen employed on ships carrying munitions of war; and whether such payment applies to all members of crews?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Extra payments are made to all members of the crew of ammunition ships who are actually engaged in handling the ammunition.

SAFETY DEVICES (RAFTS).

Mr. Adamson: asked the Minister of Shipping (1) whether the provision of extra rafts on board the decks of merchant ships has been put in operation during the war period; and if consideration has been given to placing automatic lights on all rafts, so as to enable them to be visible at night during darkness;
(2) whether the installation of lifebelt automatic lights has been adopted for the safety of the crews of merchant ships for the war period, so as to minimise the loss of life at sea during the hours of darkness?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Under the Merchant Shipping (Additional Lifesaving Appliances) Rules, 1940, which came into effect on the 8th March, it is compulsory for all seagoing ships, engaged on voyages within European waters, to carry approved


buoyant apparatus sufficient to support all persons on board. Each unit of apparatus is required to be fitted with an approved self-igniting light. Active steps are being taken, in conjunction with manufacturers, with a view to the early production of lights suitable for attachment to life-jackets.

Miss Rathbone: Has consideration been given to the possibility of fixing, on the lifebelts, lights of a different colour from those on the rafts, so that sailors struggling in the water may be distinguished from the lights on the rafts?

Mr. Hudson: These questions are being considered by a committee at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC WARFARE.

RUSSIA (IMPORTS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he is aware that 2,140,000 barrels of American oil have arrived at Vladivostock since September, and what steps he has taken to prevent this addition to the strength of the enemy?

The Minister of Economic Warfare (Mr. Cross): I regret that I am unable to state whether or not the figure mentioned by the hon. Member, which I presume is supposed to cover the period from 1st October to 31st March, is accurate. The official monthly trade returns published by the United States Government do not distinguish exports of oil or any other commodity except cotton by country of destination. I have seen various figures from different sources relating to this traffic but, as these differ from each other, I would prefer to reserve judgment on them for the present. As regards the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) on 21st March.

Mr. Mander: May we have an assurance that firm and definite steps are being taken to prevent this increase of strength to the enemy?

Mr. Cross: As I indicated in the answer to which I have referred the hon. Member, these imports of oil, although much above the 1938 figures, are not in excess of the quantities imported in some previous years. I believe that this oil is

required by the Soviet for their own use in the Far East and is not being re-exported to Germany.

Mr. Mander: Has any assurance been asked for or obtained from the Soviet Government that it will not be re-exported?

Sir Herbert Williams: Is there any case in history in which petroleum has been sent 6.000 miles by railway train?

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether, in view of the fact that the total exports from the Netherlands Indies to Vladivostock between January and August, 1939, were 520,000 kilograms, whereas from September to December, 1939, they rose to 10,611,000 kilograms, he will state what steps are being taken to prevent these supplies reaching Germany?

Mr. Cross: The hon. Member may be assured that steps are being taken in this matter, but he will appreciate that it would not be in the public interest to state what these measures are.

Mr. Mander: May we have an assurance that the steps taken will be in time and not too late?

Mr. Cross: They will be taken as rapidly as possible.

JUGOSLAVIA (BAUXITE EXPORTS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare what steps are being taken to prevent the export to Germany from the ports of Dubrovnik and Susak, of bauxite, lead ore, cement and other articles?

Mr. Cross: Reports in the Press have been brought to my notice of German ships loading such cargoes in Yugoslav ports. According to my information, however, there has only been one such cargo loaded up to the present. His Majesty's Government are carefully watching this traffic and can be relied upon to take any steps to check it which they consider practicable.

Mr. Mander: Do I understand that the Minister has no information whatsoever on this subject, except what he has seen in the Press? If so, is it not a grave reflection on our representatives abroad?

Mr. Cross: I have information of one ship, and one ship only.

INDUSTRIAL DIAMOND EXPORTS.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether His Majesty's Government are taking any steps to prevent industrial diamond exports from this country reaching Germany?

Mr. Cross: The export of industrial diamonds from this country is prohibited except under licence of the Board of Trade. A committee having a special knowledge of the diamond trade, on which the Ministry of Economic Warfare is represented, has been set up to advise the Board of Trade on all applications for export licences, to ensure that no industrial diamonds reach enemy territory.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that it is alleged that a number of diamonds, exported under licence, go to Holland, and through Holland to the Germans? Has he any information on that matter?

Mr. Cross: I am not aware of that allegation. This trade is being carefully watched, but if the hon. Member has any particular information of value I shall be very happy to have it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.

Mr. Levy: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received the report of the Court of Inquiry into the alleged activities of a financial agent in connection with contracts; and whether the report will be published?

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to announce the findings of the recent Court of Inquiry regarding War Office contracts; and what action he proposes to take in connection therewith?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The report of the Court of Inquiry has been received, and the Army Council have reached decisions on its findings, in relation to the Army officers whose actions were subject to inquiry. These decisions have been communicated to the officers concerned, and one of them has made certain representations, as he is entitled to do under the Army Act. Until I have had time to consider these representations, I think it would be premature to announce the action taken. I expect to be in a position to make an announcement at an early date.

COMMISSIONS (SELECTION OF CANDIDATES).

Sir H. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the average weekly number of commissions granted during the last three months; and what is the total staff, military and civilian, of the Department which deals with the granting of commissions?

Mr. Stanley: The answer to the first part of the Question is 740. Selection of candidates for commissions is, of course, the concern of many separate branches in the War Office among many other duties, according to the arm of the service and the source from which the candidate comes, but the staff dealing with the actual process of first appointments to commissions consists of three officers, 11 civilian clerks and one civilian typist.

Sir H. Williams: Do I understand that that represents the total number of inhabitants in Hobart House?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. If my hon. Friend reads my answer he will see I said that there are a great many other branches which, in one way or another, deal with the granting of commissions.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister satisfied that all these commissions are granted on merit?

Mr. Stanley: Certainly, my endeavours are to see that they are, and every step is taken to make certain that they are only so granted.

Mr. Gibson: Are the three officers mentioned the officers who post new officers to the different regiments?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir.

Mr. George Griffiths: Are professional footballers and professional cricketers who have been made officers given their commissions on merit?

Mr. Stanley: Even professional footballers and cricketers may have merits.

PRISONERS OF WAR (PHOTOGRAPHS).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the many photographs that have been published in the British and neutral Press of English prisoners in Germany, similar facilities will be granted for photographing German prisoners in English internment camps?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. This is not considered to be desirable, though there is no objection to visits to the prisoner of war camps by accredited representatives of neutral Powers.

Mr. Strauss: Will not the Minister agree that there has been considerable propaganda value to Germany in the publication of these photographs in neutral countries, and what is the objection to similar methods being adopted here?

Mr. Stanley: I think it is against the ideas of most people in the country—certainly it is against mine—to make peep-shows of people who have the misfortune to be prisoners of war.

MAJOR ALAN REID-KELLETT.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War on what date, and by whom, was the inquiry held into the dismissal of Major Alan Reid-Kellett, D.S.O., M.C., from his employment, civilian, as garrison engineer, Larkhill?

Colonel Burton: asked the Secretary of State for War what were the reasons for the dismissal of Major Alan Reid-Kellett, D.S.O., M.C.; and whether any inquiry is being made into his allegations of extravagance, waste and inefficiency in building camps and other Government works?

Mr. Stanley: There is no reason for a formal inquiry into the termination of Major Reid-Kellett's employment and none has been held. The specific allegations which he made were grave in character and were judged, on inquiry by the War Office, to be without foundation. As, however, these allegations were persisted in, my predecessor asked my hon. and learned Friend the senior Member for Bolton (Sir C. Entwistle) to conduct an inquiry into them, and he reported that they were completely unfounded. A copy of this report has been furnished in confidence to the Select Sub-Committee on Army Expenditure. It would clearly not be in the interests of good working that Major Reid-Kellett should again be employed in a department against which he has made allegations which he has failed to substantiate.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Secretary of State for War aware that the Financial Secretary to the War Office stated to me in this House last week that a proper inquiry had been

held on this matter? Is he further aware that the inquiry to which he refers is not in any way complete, and that, in fact, this officer has been employed as a civilian, dismissed from a particular work for a report which he had rendered on a previous work, and that no appropriate inquiry has been held?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot agree with that. Not only has there been an inquiry made in the War Office, but my predecessor, because the charges were persisted in, through excess of caution asked my hon. and learned Friend to undertake an independent inquiry. He undertook that inquiry most thoroughly and came to the conclusions I have stated. A copy of this report has been furnished to the Select Sub-Committee and they will be able to form their judgment upon it.

Mr. Stokes: I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment on the earliest possible occasion.

SOLDIERS' LEAVE.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent a travelling allowance is made by regimental units to secure that, approximately, the same time at home is assured to all men granted leave; and whether he will consider making this practice universal?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Down (Dr. Little) on 12th March and 4th April.

Mr. Mathers: Did not those replies refer to the men with the Expeditionary Force?

Mr. Stanley: One answer did, and the other answer referred to the alternative which is given to men serving at home, to take a shorter leave more often, or a longer leave at shorter intervals.

Mr. Mathers: Is it quite impossible for the War Office to solve a simple problem like this? If they cannot solve this, how do they hope to win the war?

CIVILIAN CLOTHES (COMPENSATION FOR WEAR AND TEAR).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the weekly compensation payable to a soldier for wear and tear of civilian clothes worn when on military duties; and whether there is any maximum to the compensation that may be paid?

Mr. Stanley: The compensation payable to a soldier for wear and tear of civilian clothes worn on military duty is at the rate of 3s. 6d. a week when no greatcoat, uniform or boots are issued, and is subject to a maximum payment of 28s. There are lower rates applicable when part of the outfit is issued. It is now exceptional for the issue of an allowance to be required.

ARMY SCHOOL-MISTRESSES (ALLOWANCES).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Queen's Army school-mistresses married to serving soldiers are not allowed to draw the wife's allowance although soldiers wives who are in employment as civilian school-teachers are; and whether he will take steps to end this anomaly by making Army school-mistresses otherwise qualified for the allowance eligible to receive it?

Mr. Stanley: I am looking into this Question.

JOURNALISTS IN MILITARY AREAS (IDENTIFICATION CARDS).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War whether instructions will be issued to all commands that the card of the National Union of Journalists, accepted by the Chief Constables' Association, shall be recognised as authority on the part of reporters to make legitimate inquiries, provided that the identity of the holder be vouched for by a magistrate, or otherwise confirmed?

Mr. Stanley: The membership card of the National Union of Journalists cannot be accepted as conferring a right to carry out activities in all military areas, but, when permission is sought to visit any military station or establishment to which bona fide Pressmen may be admitted, the production of a membership card of the National Union of Journalists, containing a photograph of the holder, will be accepted as one method of establishing bona fides. The Secretary of the National Union of Journalists and all Home Commands have been so informed. These arrangements will also apply where a membership card of the Institute of Journalists is produced to the appropriate authority. The general question of the authority to be produced by journalists as a means of identification is being considered.

SOLDIERS' WIVES (DEDUCTION FROM ALLOWANCES).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War why Mrs. M. Sill, of 45, Castle Grove, Kendal, has been penalised by the loss of 16s. from her allowance as a result of her husband, No. 3597603, of the 4th Border Regiment, being punished for the offence of attempting to drink coffee while on duty, as such penalisation of wives for minor offences committed by the husbands in the Army is contrary to declared policy?

Mr. Stanley: I have ascertained that a sum of 8s. (not 16s.) in respect of allotment from her husband's pay was deducted from the payments to Mrs. Sill in consequence of a forfeiture of eight days' pay which Private Sill incurred in February last. Under the procedure now in operation, payment to the wife is continued in such cases and the amount involved charged against the soldier's account for subsequent recovery, for a period up to 28 days. Instructions have been given for the 8s. in question to be paid to Mrs. Sill and charged against the soldier's account in accordance with this procedure.

TROOPS, PALESTINE (PRIVILEGES).

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the troops in Palestine are not receiving the same treatment as members of the forces in France; that they are unable to purchase cigarettes duty free, and are obliged to pay full postal rates; and, in view of the fact that due to their distance from home it is impossible for them to get leave and they frequently have reason to use the air mail, will he approach the Government of Palestine with a view to extending to the troops in that area all the privileges now granted to the troops in France?

Mr. Stanley: As has been stated in reply to previous Questions on this subject, the distinction between troops in France and those elsewhere lies in the fact that the former are serving in a theatre of active operations; but the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes are able to import goods into Palestine practically free of duty and to sell cigarettes to the troops there at prices very much less than those charged in this country. As regards the last part


of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12th December last.

Sir F. Sanderson: Will not my right hon. Friend see that the troops in Palestine have the same facilities as those prevailing in France?

Mr. Stanley: I have explained why that is not possible, but special provision has been made by the institutes, and it is possible for troops to buy these things through the institutes at prices which compare favourably with the prices which the soldiers would have to pay if they were in this country.

RATION MONEY.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that ration money is sometimes not paid till the expiration of a soldier's leave, with consequent financial hardship; and will he arrange for a soldier always to be paid his ration money when he commences his leave?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of the cases he has in mind, I will have them investigated.

MILITARY TRAINING (AGRICULTURAL AREAS).

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that essential agricultural production in support of the Government's food campaign policy is still being seriously interfered with by military operations, for instance, in the Swindon and Marlborough areas; and whether there has been any consultation between the local military command and the Wiltshire County War Executive Agricultural Committee to obviate this interference, and with what results?

Mr. Stanley: The needs of military training cannot, unfortunately, be met without interference with agricultural interests, but every effort has been made to reduce this disadvantage to a minimum, and the War Office has throughout maintained close consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture. In the case of the area to which my hon. Friend refers particularly, there has been consultation with a representative of the county war

executive agricultural committee, and various modifications in the proposals originally put forward by the military authorities were made.

Sir P. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend considering the instances given to him where fences have been broken down, gates left open where stock is, and tanks and guns taken where lambing is going on, greatly to the detriment of agricultural operations?

Mr. Stanley: I will look into cases of negligence, but we do make every effort when we take ground for training purposes to arrange beforehand with the local inhabitants to try and make use of the ground in a way that will cause the least possible damage to agriculture.

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCE.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private G. Boycott, No. 3526238, is alloting 10s. 6d. a week out of his Army pay to his widowed mother, who resides at 16, Bold Street, Leigh, and no dependants' allowance is given to her because her son is a Regular soldier, and therefore, is held not to come within the regulations of contributing to the home six months before the war broke out; and will he consider bringing all soldiers within the allowance scheme?

Mr. Stanley: Dependants' allowance is designed to provide for cases in which hardship is caused through men who have joined the colours in connection with the war being unable to continue support which they had previously been giving to dependants. It is not a normal emolument of the Regular Army; but, where in fact a soldier who was serving before the war was for the six months preceding the outbreak of war contributing towards the support of a dependant an amount in excess of the qualifying allotment appropriate to his rate of pay and on a scale which would have rendered a dependant's allowance admissible had he been in civil life during that period, an award can be made. The previous contribution by the soldier is an essential feature of the scheme. According to my information, Private Boycott was making a contribution of only 3s. 6d. a week up to 20th March, 1939, when he increased it to 7s. a week. In those circumstances, an allowance in his case is not admissible.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that many of these young men were apprentices before they joined the Regular Army, and that this test of what they were contributing before they went into the Army is very unsuitable?

Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the conditions of the home in this case have changed since the man joined, that the mother is now out of work, and that the man was contributing 7s. a week before May last? If I send particulars to him will the right hon. Gentleman go into the matter?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, I will look into it.

Mr. Silverman: Does not the Minister consider that where a serving Regular soldier before the war has been making some contribution to dependants it establishes, at any rate, partial dependency, so that something ought to be paid?

Mr. Stanley: The conditions are quite different. The whole basis of the dependant's allowance is that the man has been taken away from his civilian occupation and it has been made impossible for him to contribute to the family on the same scale as before. The Regular soldier is in the same position financially in war-time as he was in peace-time, and he is able to continue making the same contributions in war-time as he did in peace-time.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Does not the Minister see that this is unfair and is causing a great deal of discontent in the country?

SOLDIER-CHAUFFEURS (INSURANCE).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider how a fine of £2,imposed on a serving soldier while acting as chauffeur to an officer, ought to be met in the best interests of the soldier and the Service; whether he will consider issuing instructions for setting up a regimental insurance fund to meet such incidents or otherwise to ease the burden from the shoulders of a soldier receiving 6s. per week; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

Mr. Stanley: A soldier acting as a chauffeur who commits a breach of the Road Traffic Act or other civil offence is liable to penalty in a civil court equally with any other person, and I see no justification for a regimental insurance fund. It is the practice to pay fines on the

soldier's behalf and to recover the amount from him by instalments.

Mr. Gibson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that a serving soldier acting in a case of this sort is in quite a different position, so far as ability to pay, from that in which he would be if he were a civilian?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot agree that he is in a different position, because the law applies to him as a soldier equally as it does to a civilian and he has to obey the law in just the same way.

Miss Wilkinson: Is it not a fact that if a serving soldier disobeys an order of an officer, that is under military law? What is a man to do if an officer orders him to disobey the civil law?

Mr. Stanley: That is a hypothetical case. If an officer gave a man an order to disobey the civil code it would be a grave disciplinary offence on the part of the officer and would certainly have to be punished.

SCOTTISH REGIMENTS (ENGLISH OFFICERS).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for War how many English officers from English regiments have been posted to Scottish regiments since 1st January, 1940; whether he is aware that such transfers have prevented Scottish cadets, the sons of Scotsmen, from being posted to Scottish regiments; that this causes discontent and is lowering the morale of Scottish units; and whether he will give an assurance that the practice complained of will cease?

Mr. Stanley: I regret that no record has been kept which would show the number of English officers from English regiments posted to Scottish regiments since 1st January, 1940. But I am assured that, except in the case of Home Defence battalions, the number is negligible, and that such a posting is not made except when there is a particular requirement for which no Scottish officer is available. Even so, endeavour is always made to provide an officer of Scottish descent. I do not think, therefore, that the effect can be such as the hon. and learned Member indicates.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Scottish officers are swarming in English regiments, who do not really mind very much?

Mr. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is causing very grave concern among officers and men, both those in Scottish regiments and those prevented from joining Scottish regiments, and can he say what is the machinery for posting officers to particular regiments?

Mr. Stanley: It will only be causing concern at all if the facts are misrepresented. This posting seldom occurs, and only when a specialist officer is required for any particular job and when there is no Scottish officer available.

Sir H. Williams: Could my right hon. Friend say how many Scottish officers are serving in the Navy?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNMENT CAMP, SWANWICK.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make inquiries into the conditions obtaining at the internment camp at Swanwick, Derby; and is he aware that the leader of that camp is a Nazi party leader, censors all letters, compels the singing of the Horst Wessel song, and that all non-Nazis are beaten up?

Mr. Stanley: I am informed that, on the arrival of a number of men at this camp, there was a demonstration, but that no serious harm was done and that the new arrivals are on good terms with the rest of the camp population. I am also informed that there is no substance in the suggestion that all letters are censored by the camp leader or that there is compulsion to sing Nazi songs.

Mr. Lipson: Has my right hon. Friend made very full inquiries, and has he seen a letter which I sent to him in which is contained the information on which this Question is based? Is he aware that I have another letter which confirms everything stated in the first letter and which gives a very different picture from that of my right hon Friend? Will he not see that a proper investigation is carried out?

Mr. Stanley: I have made a proper investigation and I have given the facts. A very careful eye will be kept on the conduct of this camp.

Mr. Lipson: Will my right hon. Friend arrange that prisoners of war are not put

in the same camps as residents of this country who have had to be interned?

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Is it not undesirable that the War Office should recognise a Nazi party leader as a leader of the camp?

Mr. Stanley: We do not recognise a Nazi party leader as the leader of the camp.

Mr. Lipson: May I have an answer to my question? I asked the Minister whether he would not give an undertaking that prisoners of war should not be put in the same camps as civilian internees?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir.

Miss Wilkinson: Is not the statement that general good will is now felt due to the fact that no complaints are being made because prisoners are afraid of being beaten up; and is it not a fact that after a preliminary demonstration those who were not members of the Nazi party were afraid of being anything else?

Mr. Stanley: I do not believe that in the case of this camp that is so.

Mr. R. Gibson: Arising out of the original answer, can the right hon. Gentleman say what the disturbance was about?

Oral Answers to Questions — NEUTRAL COUNTRIES (IMPORTS).

Mr. Levy: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered the introduction of a system of rationing neutrals according to their domestic needs in certain imports as was done during the last war?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): As my hon. Friend is aware, the situation to-day is not entirely the same as it was during the last war. We have been able to make War Trade Agreements with a number of neutral countries and the question of supplementing these, where necessary, by rationing arrangements in regard to certain imports, is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CABINET COMMITTEE.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state the name of the Member of the


War Cabinet who is now to preside over the committee dealing with agriculture?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will preside over the committee in question.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend realise that up to now we have not had a clearly denned policy in regard to food production; and will it be the task of the Lord Privy Seal to visualise something rather more than the indiscriminate ploughing-up programme, so that we may have the maximum output?

The Prime Minister: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's view.

GRASSLAND PLOUGHING.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Agriculture what acreage of grassland was scheduled to be ploughed up in the counties of Northumberland and Durham, respectively, under the £2 an acre scheme; and how many acres have been ploughed to date?

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): I would refer the hon. Member to a reply I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 4th April. I do not think that it would be in the interests of the food production campaign to publish the information asked for at this stage, but I can say that good progress is being made in both counties.

Mr. Adams: Has the quota been approximately reached?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Very good progress is being made.

EXCHANGE CONTROL.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the fall of sterling is creating a very unfavourable impression in neutral countries; and what steps does he propose to take to reinforce exchange restrictions and to block foreign balances?

Mr. Loftus: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he is aware that there is a free market on the London Stock Exchange for the sale by aliens of sterling securities, and that during recent weeks large quantities of such securities have been sold there by

American owners who have converted the sterling payments received into dollars on the unofficial exchange in New York; thereby causing a heavy fall in the sterling exchange; and what steps he is taking to prevent such action;
(2)whether he is aware that portions of the sterling payments made by the Treasury to British owners of dollar securities have been utilised by the recipients in purchasing large quantities of international sterling securities, such as British-American tobacco shares, gold mining and oil shares from American owners who have converted the sterling payments into dollars; and what steps is he taking to prevent the purpose of requisitioning dollar securities being thereby nullified?

Mr. Boothby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now place an absolute embargo upon the withdrawal of funds from this country by aliens living abroad?

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to bring about a recovery in the value of free sterling in America, in view of the fact that the free franc and the Canadian dollar have fallen in sympathy with free sterling?

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make in regard to the present low position of sterling on the New York exchange, and as to what effect this will have on Anglo-American trade relations?

Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any estimate of the total amounts held by foreign residents in the form of sterling balances; and whether he pro poses to take any steps to block the disposal of these in order that he may prevent further depreciation of sterling in the unofficial market?

Mr. John Wilmot: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he has any estimates as to the proportion that the turnover in the unofficial market in sterling during March bore to transactions in the official market;
(2) in view of the fact that recent depreciation of the free sterling rate tends to cause a rise in the price level and of


the cost of living in this country, what steps he intends to take to reverse the fall of sterling by tightening the exchange restrictions?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The matters referred to in these Questions are technical and it is difficult to compress an answer within ordinary limits. I have prepared a considered statement, and, with the leave of hon. Members, I will circulate it in the Official Report.

Miss Wilkinson: Is that method of answering all these questions a way of avoiding inconvenient Supplementary Questions?

Sir J. Simon: No, it has nothing to do with that at all.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing feeling in the country that the Treasury are not using their full powers in regard to foreign exchange?

Sir J. Simon: May I invite my hon. Friend to consider the statement which I am circulating?

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling in the country is that he is not taking enough from the rich?

Sir H. Williams: Is it not the case that all the monetary reformers up to now have been in favour of the depression of the pound sterling because they wanted inflation?

Following is the statement:

I am glad to have this opportunity of making a statement which will, I hope, serve to correct some of the misapprehensions current, both at home and abroad, on this subject.

The recent fall in the unofficial rate for sterling on foreign markets was in no way a sign of financial weakness or difficulties on the part of this country. It was the natural result of the recent regulation providing that exports of tin, rubber and certain other commodities must be paid for in foreign currencies or in sterling obtained from authorised dealers in exchange for foreign currencies. The object of the regulation was to ensure that these exports contribute directly to our foreign exchange resources. The fall in the

quotation was the incidental result of tightening up the Exchange Control.

Sterling is the basic currency of vast areas in many parts of the world and the problem of controlling it is thereby rendered both more important and more difficult. The House will appreciate that this fall is limited to a very small proportion of sterling, namely, that held by such foreigners as choose to dispose of it to another foreigner at the rate current on foreign markets. Our policy is to maintain the purchasing power of sterling for the national needs and in pursuit of that policy we have arranged that the vast bulk of transactions between sterling and other currencies shall be conducted in London through our control and at our official rates. That may have the incidental result that any outside market for sterling becomes a very thin market and a thin market is always erratic and fluctuating. If our general policy is sound, as I am convinced that it is, we must not be deflected from it by secondary considerations. By far the greater part of sterling transactions are carried through at the official rate. I am satisfied that the proportion of transactions carried through outside the official market is a very small one.

The proportion becomes very much smaller still if we allow for the fact that a very great proportion of our purchases are made from the sterling and franc using areas and do not involve the intervention of foreign currencies at all. Any suggestion that the rates quoted in the free market are important in the cost of living in this country cannot be sustained.

I think that it would be a wrong policy altogether to intervene in support of sterling in the free market.

As regards the question whether we should block sterling assets belonging to foreigners, a great deal of foreign money has been invested in this country in securities, or entrusted to our banking system because sterling is, and remains, a currency in international use. At the outbreak of war, we assumed complete control over the international uses to which the money belonging to our own people might be put, but we left the foreigner—by which I mean people living outside the sterling area—free to dispose of his assets, here or elsewhere. That decision was in accord with the principles


and traditions on which, in this market, foreigners have always felt able to rely. We were, of course, under no obligation to convert such foreign holdings into gold or into foreign currencies at the expense of our reserves: every foreign holder was aware that he held sterling and nothing else. But we could have prevented him from taking his money or his securities home. To do this, we should have had to make it impossible for him to deliver to another foreign buyer. In other words, we should have had to put an embargo upon the use of his money or his securities. On a balanced review of all the considerations we chose not to do so, exposing ourselves no doubt thereby to the risk that some foreign holders would use their freedom in order to dispose of their sterling assets. That has not happened to any substantial extent and it would not be to our advantage to take the action suggested in the direction of blocking these assets.

Sterling, I maintain, is good to hold; and I believe that this opinion is spreading in neutral countries. The best way of ensuring that it will continue to spread is to maintain, for ourselves and others, so far as we can, the essential liberties which, in the financial and every other field, are traditional in this country. I have considered this matter very carefully and am satisfied that our policy is in the best interests of this country—the test by which, of course, all our policy has to be settled.

TREASURY BILLS (DISCOUNT RATES).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the rate at which Treasury bills are discounted is virtually fixed by a powerful market syndicate; that the rate to-day at over 20s. per cent. is nearly double the average rate for the first 11 weeks of 1939, although the Bank Rate is the same; and what steps he proposes to take to see that Treasury bills are allotted through a system of genuine tendering?

Sir J. Simon: I am satisfied that no syndicate does, or could, virtually fix the rate at which His Majesty's Government can borrow on Treasury bills; this is inevitably governed by a number of factors on which the rate must depend.

I see no reason to alter the conditions under which tenders for Treasury bills are lodged.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Chancellor not aware that there is a group of 16 firms, virtually a syndicate, who settle the price at which Treasury bills are discounted before even the five joint stock banks come in?

Sir J. Simon: Although the hon. Member speaks very confidently I think he will find that he is wrong. If he will examine his Question he will see that it contains three different dates. On each of those dates the price of Treasury bills was different, and yet on all those dates the Bank Rate was the same.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Chancellor realise that he has not even attempted to answer my Supplementary Question? If I furnish him with the names of the persons, will he give an assurance that they have nothing to do with the fixing of the Treasury discount rate?

Sir F. Sanderson: Is it not a fact that the interest rate on Treasury bills is 200 per cent. less than it was during the last war?

Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that the last war was a racket?

BANK RATE.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that during the first eleven weeks of 1939 the Treasury bill discount rate averaged 11s. per cent., and that the average rate for 1938 was 12s. 6d. per cent., as compared with over 20s. per cent. to-day; and whether he will take steps to reduce the Bank Rate so that the discount rate may be restored to the lower figure?

Sir J. Simon: Although my information gives slightly different figures from those in the first part of the Question, their relations are broadly the same. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer to the reply given to a Question by the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot) on 27th February last. I see that it was to this Question that I was referring in reply to the hon. Member's Supplementary Question just now.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer wish us to understand that the Treasury do not at the present time instruct the Bank as to the alteration of the Bank Rate?

Sir J. Simon: If the hon. Member will refer to the answer which I gave he will find that the considerations which he asks about are dealt with there.

TAXATION POLICY (PRESS CONFERENCE).

Mr. J. Wilmot: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was with his authority that Lord Stamp, economic adviser to the Government, addressed a Press conference at the Ministry of Information on Monday, 1st April, at which he made certain statements regarding future taxation policy?

Sir J. Simon: I was aware that the Ministry of Information proposed to arrange a Press conference on economic issues, excluding budgetary and financial matters, and to a conference which observed these limitations I took no objection. I am informed that it was explained at the outset that the talk would be confined to economic issues; for this reason, and because it is well known that any statements about future taxation policy made in advance of the Budget are without authority, there would be no justification for interpreting what was said on this occasion as in any way indicative of such policy.

Mr. Wilmot: Does the Chancellor think it is good public policy that a person occupying so high a position, and concerned with financial matters, should make statements on financial subjects without consulting the Chancellor, which statements subsequently had to be repudiated?

Sir J. Simon: If the hon. Member will study my original answer he will see that I have explained what were the limits of this conference.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it not the case that Lord Stamp's statement was to the effect that if £12 a week men did not accept additional taxation they would have to submit to compulsory savings?

Sir J. Simon: I have not the least idea.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

SUB-POSTMASTERS (PAY).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the appeal made to him by the sub-post masters for an increase in their remuneration to meet the increased cost of living; and will he state what he intends to do?

Sir J. Simon: I have received no appeal from sub-postmasters for an increase in their remuneration on cost-of-living grounds. With regard to the representations made to me on behalf of the general body of civil servants, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 2nd April to my hon. Friend the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford).

Mr. Tinker: Is it not the case that since that time the cost of living has gone up five points, and when will the Chancellor give consideration to the claims which are being made? When will the point be reached at which he will consider the position?

Sir J. Simon: Representations on the subject are made from time to time, but, as I have explained, the hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that there has been an appeal to me by the sub-postmasters.

Sir H. Williams: If everybody is to have his income made up to meet the increase in the cost of living, will the Chancellor say who is going to pay for the war?

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (PROMOTIONS).

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the promotion of Civil Service conscientious objectors who were exempted from military service 1914 to 1918 on grounds of conscientious objection over the heads of ex-service men of relative seniority and of admitted Departmental merit; and whether, in view of the present war emergency and the need for the support of the whole community to the war effort, he will reconsider the policy of His Majesty's Government as announced in this House on 12th July, 1938?

Sir J. Simon: As regards the first part of the Question, the selection of a particular individual for promotion is a matter for the head of the Department concerned, in the light of all the relevant


circumstances. No preference is given over senior ex-service men of equal efficiency and I see no grounds for altering the decision conveyed by Treasury Circular of 10th September, 1929.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer not realise that this circular has completely altered the position, and that men who have not done their duty to their country have been promoted over the heads of the men who have done their duty?

Sir J. Simon: My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that what he is referring to is a question that arose in an individual case 25 years ago, and I think the Treasury regulation was in the circumstances a reasonable one.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SAVINGS (NEED TEST ASSESSMENTS).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the work of the National Savings movement in forming savings groups is hampered because many men are afraid that such savings will be taken into account in a means test assessment after the war; and whether he will give an assurance that this will not be done?

Sir J. Simon: Representations have been made to me to this effect, and the possibility of increasing, in the case of new savings made out of wages during the war and lent to the Nation, the amount of capital disregarded for this purpose is under consideration.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the importance of this matter, can my right hon. Friend say when he will make a statement?

Sir J. Simon: I cannot give an exact date, but I hope that it will be at an early date.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: May I ask whether the point has been discussed with the Trades Union Congress?

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider making further differences in Income Tax between a bachelor living in a hotel or club, and a married man main-

taining an establishment that includes gardeners, foresters or other outside workers?

Sir J. Simon: My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate my Budget Statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALL INVESTORS.

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the approximate number of small investors in the United Kingdom, and the estimated total amount invested by them?

Sir J. Simon: The different kinds of investment open to the small investor are, of course, also open to others, and, in estimating the total number of small investors, it is necessary to remember that the same individual will, in many cases, have taken advantage of more than one form of investment. These considerations make it impossible to give a precise answer to my hon. Friend's Question, but I may say that the latest available figure of the amount invested through the channels normally taken into account for such a calculation is £3,537,000,000.

Mr. Gallacher: Can the Chancellor give us any idea of the amount of the debt that has been accumulated by these same people?

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX ARREARS (THE LATE MR. J. A. PHILLIPS).

Mr. Lathan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to state the circumstances in which, according to the Official Receiver's report, the Inland Revenue Department became an unsecured creditor against the estate of the late Jack Abraham Phillips for the sum of £150,000; if he will state the period covered by these arrears of taxes; and the nature of the steps taken to obtain payment currently, or within a reasonable limit of time?

Sir J. Simon: I have had before me the report for which I called in this matter. I am, of course, precluded from divulging details of a taxpayer's affairs, but the report shows that the liabilities concerned related to very complicated transactions and involved difficult points of law and accountancy, in regard both to


the existence and measure of the liabilities and to the years to which profits should properly be referred. Mr. Phillips was latterly in extreme ill-health and there was much delay in the production of accounts and of information, which only he could furnish. In these circumstances assessments which had been made for 1932–33 and subsequent years were all under appeal, and although tax was collected in respect of the undisputed liability, the disputed elements could not be determined by the appellate tribunal until shortly before Mr. Phillips's death, and then not for the latest years concerned; for these years the assessments are still under appeal.

Mr. Lathan: While thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that benches of magistrates in London and elsewhere are constantly required to issue summonses and committal orders against defaulters for small sums of money, and does he realise that cases of the character dealt with in the Question encourage the view that well-to-do defaulters are dealt with very differently from poor people?

Sir J. Simon: I am glad that the hon. Member has put his supplementary Question, because it gives me the opportunity of stating that, whether that impression exists or not, it certainly is not true. It was for the very purpose of ascertaining the circumstances that I called for a special report in this case. I regret very much that there should have been so much delay. Both small taxpayers and big taxpayers, usually speaking, pay their taxes very promptly.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting the matter back into the hands of the Special Commissioners, because a taxpayer himself sitting in judgment upon a fellow taxpayer would not have allowed this period to elapse?

Sir J. Simon: It is quite true that this case was dealt with by the General Commissioners and not by the Special Commissioners, and that is another reason why I wanted to look at it myself. I think that the existing system can hardly be changed on the grounds given, but I appreciate the point which the hon. Member makes.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. Dingle Foot: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what duties are now being performed by the Import Duties Advisory Committee; and whether the chairman and members of the committee continue to draw their salaries?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): The functions of the committee are at present suspended. The chairman of the committee is serving on the Board of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute. Of the other two members one is performing duties in the Ministry of Supply and the other is serving with His Majesty's Forces. In answer to the second part of the Question, the chairman and members of the committee continue to draw salaries during their term of office.

Mr. Foot: Are we to understand that they continue to draw salaries in respect of duties which they are no longer performing?

Captain Crookshank: They draw the salaries to which they are entitled by Statute, as members of the committee. As I have indicated, their services are being usefully employed in other directions.

Colonel Nathan: May I ask whether the chairman's salary is borne by the funds of N.A.A.F.I. or by the previous source?

Captain Crookshank: As far as I know, it is drawn from the source from which it previously came. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would like me to verify that fact perhaps he will make a separate Question of it.

Mr. J. Wilmot: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is not being paid from both sources?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, there is only one salary as far as I know.

Mr. Foot: Would it not be better if these gentlemen were paid the remuneration for the duties they are now performing?

Captain Crookshank: I have explained that they get their salaries by Statute.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) the total amount of Admiralty, War Office and Air Ministry contracts at present being undertaken by the firm of George Wimpeys and Company, Limited, giving separate figures for Scotland;
(2) the total amount of Admiralty, War Office and Air Ministry contracts at present being undertaken by the firm of Mowlems, Limited, giving separate figures for Scotland?

Captain Crookshank: The answer is in the negative. It has long been the established practice not to disclose the figures of contracts placed with individual contractors by Government Departments. I do not consider that it would be in the national interest to change the practice in time of war.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the figure of £75,000,000 is being commonly quoted in Scotland as being the amount for which Wimpeys and Company, Limited, have contracts, and does he not consider that this tremendous amount of contract work means that the work cannot be speedily or efficiently concluded.

Captain Crookshank: As I have said, I cannot give any figures. The hon. Gentleman would not like me to comment on this matter beyond saying that it does sound a very large figure.

Mr. Davidson: Does not the Minister recognise that this hiding of figures gives rise to rumours?

FARM RENTS.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will immediately introduce legislation to make it illegal for the rents of farms in Scotland to be raised during the war, and for a period of two years afterwards, so as to prevent the rise in rents which occurred during the last war?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I have received representations from the National Farmers' Union and Chamber of Agriculture of Scotland in favour of regulating farm

rents during the war and for a period thereafter and have arranged that the Department of Agriculture for Scotland shall confer on the subject with the interests concerned.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State for Scotland answer the Question that is on the Paper, namely, whether he will introduce legislation to make it illegal for rents of farms in Scotland to be raised during the war? I have received no reply to that part of my Question.

Mr. Colville: Until the Conference of which I have spoken has been held it would be unwise to say.

Mr. Kirkwood: Only a week ago the Secretary of State for Scotland said he had a conference with the farmers of Scotland and his reply then, as his reply now, was entirely unsatisfactory. I want to ask—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot allow the hon. Member to make a speech.

Mr. Kirkwood: Owing to the unsatisfactory reply I will raise the matter at the first available opportunity.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND DRAINAGE.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total new acreage of Scotland now being utilised for agricultural production on the recommendation of Scottish war agricultural committees; and the number of recommendations regarding drainage improvements or alterations made by the war agricultural committees?

Mr. Colville: Notifications of intention to plough up over 270,000 acres of old grassland under the subsidy scheme have now been received from farmers in Scotland. Ploughingis still proceeding and it is not yet possible to say what net additional acreage will be under cultivation this year. With regard to the second part of the Question, no reports have been received from agricultural executive committees on this matter and it is perhaps rather early as yet for such reports to have been made as the Act became law on 21st March last.

Mr. Davidson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of those new


acres now being cultivated belonged previously to landowners who refused in the past to have them cultivated?

Mr. Colville: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINE WORKERS, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of wage-earners on the colliery books at the present time in South and West Yorkshire, respectively; and the comparative figures for the end of August, 1939?

Mr. Shakespeare (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply in the absence of my hon. Friend, who is indisposed. It is not in the public interest to publish this information.

Mr. Smith: Is it not a fact that it would be in the public interest if something were done to absorb in the mining industry those miners who are now unemployed? What is the Department doing towards that end?

Mr. Shakespeare: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put that Question down.

EXPLOSION, MOSSFIELD COLLIERY, LONGTON.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can state the arrangements made, who is to conduct the inquiry, and whether it will be a full investigation into the causes and circumstances attending the explosion which occurred at the Mossfield colliery, Longton, on 2st March; and whether it is intended to invite two assessors to be present and to have evidence taken from all who may assist in the investigation?

Mr. Shakespeare: The matter is under consideration and the Secretary for Mines will make a statement as soon as possible.

PRODUCER-GAS (PRICE).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary for Mines whether there is now a uniform charge to consumers throughout the country for transport producer-gas;

if so, whether he will state the figure; and, if not, whether he can give an approximate range of the prices charged?

Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, Sir. A uniform price of 90s. per ton delivered to the consumer anywhere in the country has been arranged for the producer-gas fuel manufactured by two firms, and discussions are proceeding with another firm with the intention of fixing the same prices for their products. This price may be increased by 7s. 6d. per ton for specially dried fuel.

COAL CARGOES (RIVER TYNE).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the serious detention of vessels loading coal cargoes in the Tyne when the coal ordered is not available; and whether he will make arrangements, in future, for the prompt shipment of similar coal from other sources where there is customarily an abundance in the port awaiting tonnage?

Mr. Shakespeare: The Secretary for Mines is aware that there has been delay recently to shipping in the Tyne due to heavy arrivals of tonnage and consequent pressure for loading berths, accentuated by the interference caused by the Easter holidays. The Mines Department is in constant touch with the Ministry of Shipping, both at headquarters and locally, in order to ensure that the fullest use is made both of shipping and loading berths at all ports having regard to the availability of coal.

Mr. Adams: Will the Minister note that this detention of vessels is causing a sense of grievance?

FUEL SHORTAGE.

Captain Plugge: asked the Secretary for Mines, in view of the shortage of coal, whether any mines are not working either at all or on part-time; and what is the reason in each such case for failure to produce the maximum capacity?

Mr. Shakespeare: Following the improvement in transport conditions by sea and rail practically all pits are working full time.

Mr. Thorne: How long will it be before the people in London and other parts of the country are in a position to get the coal they want?

Mr. Tinker: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary for Mines whether he is sure that pits are employed to full capacity, as some of these are working only four or five days a week? Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries?

Mr. Shakespeare: indicated assent.

Captain Plugge: asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the complaints of coal-shortage in the Med-way area, he can make any statement as to when normality in respect of supplies will have been reached; and whether, in view of the approach of summer, definite assurances can be given?

Mr. Shakespeare: The Secretary for Mines fully expects that supplies of house coal will soon be equal to current requirements.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered the letters sent to him on 19th and 20th February by the fuel overseers of Edinburgh, West Lothian and Midlothian; and when they may expect his reply?

Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, Sir; the reply was sent on 4th April.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL RATIONING.

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will allow to members of the ocean-going Mercantile Marine similar concessions regarding fuel for private motor vehicles whilst they are on leave as he has granted in the case of members of His Majesty's Forces?

Mr. Shakespeare: This question is at present under consideration, in consultation with the Service and other Departments concerned, but the Secretary for Mines is not yet in a position to make any statement.

Mr. Simmonds: Will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary for Mines to bear in mind that, although these men may not wear His Majesty's uniform, they are undertaking work equally important and dangerous with that of the Armed Forces?

Mr. Shakespeare: I will convey that matter to my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATE OF ALBERTA (LOAN DEFAULT).

Sir H. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statement to make as to the present position of the default of the Government of Alberta in respect of certain of its loans?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Eden): I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement on this Question. I am informed, however, that the text of the Budget Speech of the Treasurer of Alberta will shortly be available in this country, and I will be glad to send a copy to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — EIRE AND GERMANY.

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, what steps are being taken to prevent German intrigues against the Allies in Eire?

Mr. Eden: The matter is one for the Eire Government, who, I am confident, will fully discharge their responsibilities.

Dr. Little: Since Eire is the Achilles heel of the British Empire, is my right hon. Friend satisfied with conditions on the border?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNINTERNED ALIENS (REGIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES).

Mr. Levy: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the regional advisory committees, which are to review the cases of certain uninterned aliens, will be engaged permanently on this work, or whether they are to be disbanded when the initial review, now contemplated, is completed?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): These regional advisory committees have been appointed to carry out certain specified blocks of work. Whether, when they have completed the tasks which at present have been assigned to them, there may be any further work of the same kind which they could advantageously be asked to undertake, is a question for later consideration; but their work is not of such a character as to require them to be kept permanently in existence.

Mr. Burke: Before these committees are disbanded, will they be allowed to complete the work on which they now are engaged?

Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPYARDS (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the Home Secretary the number of fatal and other accidents in British shipyards for each month for the period 1936 to September, 1939, inclusive?

Mr. Peake: I regret that the figures asked for are not available and could not be compiled without great labour, but in order to enable a comparison to be made between the figures recently given to the hon. Member for the period October, 1939, to February, 1940, and the figures for the corresponding period in the previous year, I have had figures got out for the period October, 1938, to February, 1939. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

Shipbuilding and Repairing Yards.


Accidents reported under the Factories Act during October 1938 to February 1939 inclusive.


Month.
Non-Fatal.
Fatal.
Total.


October
646
7
653


November
717
6
723


December
615
5
620


January
567
6
573


February
646
8
654


Totals
3,191
32
3,223

BILL PRESENTED.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.

"to amend the provisions of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Act, 1937, relating to the power to direct reconsideration of minimum rates of wages, the constitution of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board, and the appointment of chairmen of Agricultural Wages Committees," presented by Mr. Colville; supported by the Lord Advocate, Capt. McEwen, Capt. Crookshank, and Mr. Assheton; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 33.]

GERMAN INVASION OF NORWAY AND DENMARK.

ALLIES' DECISION.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

3.46 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The House will be aware that Germany has to-day invaded Denmark and Norway. Ever since the beginning of the present War she has attempted to dominate Scandinavia and to control both the political and the economic policy of the Scandinavian States. Her pressure on those States has been steadily increasing and, as is now well known, she claimed and exercised the right to dictate their policy towards Finland during the Finnish-Soviet War. The House will recall that, in the statement which I made at the end of that war, on 19th March, I used the following words in speaking of the struggle:
What is the result to Scandinavia? The security of Finland has gone, but has the security of Norway and Sweden been preserved? On the contrary, the danger has been brought closer than ever to those two countries, till to-day it stands upon their doorsteps.
After expressing sympathy with those States, to whom I said that the issue of war could not be a matter of indifference, I concluded:
Nothing will or can save them but a determination to defend themselves and to join with others who are ready to aid them in their defence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1940; cols. 1842–3, Vol. 358.]
Some of my listeners then may have thought those words exaggerated, but now we see the fulfilment to the letter of the prophecy they contained. Since that date the situation has further developed. As was pointed out in the statement issued by His Majesty's Government yesterday, the German Government have claimed and exercised the right to destroy neutral, and particularly Scandinavian, ships on the seas around this country, by all the means in their power, but, at the same time, they have insisted upon the strictest observation of the rules of neutrality where this would provide some advantage to them, as it did in Norwegian waters. The Allies then decided that they could not acquiesce indefinitely in

this state of affairs, and having given notice to the Norwegian Government that they reserved the right to take such measures as might be necessary to redress the balance thus weighted against them, they laid minefields in Norwegian waters so as to prevent the unhindered passsage of German traffic through them, while in no way interfering with normal Norwegian trade. At no time did the Allies contemplate any occupation of Scandinavian territory so long as it was not attacked by Germany. Any allegations by Germany to the contrary are pure invention and have no foundation in fact.
The German Government have now issued a statement to the effect that they have decided to take over the protection of Denmark and Norway. German motorised and armed forces crossed the Danish frontier at daybreak and a considerable area of Danish territory is in German occupation. Their troops are reported to have landed at Copenhagen this morning. His Majesty's Government have learned that the German Minister at Oslo, early to-day, made a formal demand for the surrender of Norway to Germany, stating that in the event of refusal all resistance would be crushed. This demand was, of course, immediately refused by the Norwegian Government, as they have officially declared. We have now heard that fighting has already started, and there are Press reports that Oslo and Christians and have been bombed. German troops have landed on Norwegian territory at various places.
It is asserted by the German Government that their invasion of Norway was a reprisal for the action of the Allies in Norwegian territorial waters. This statement will, of course, deceive no one. So elaborate an operation, involving simultaneous landings at a number of ports by troops accompanied by naval forces, requires planning long in advance; and the information which is now coming to hand clearly indicates that it was not only planned, but was already in operation, before the mines were laid in Norwegian waters. The facts of the German operation, which are becoming public property, suffice in themselves to prove what I have just said. It is reported that, among others, the Norwegian port of Trondheim has been invaded by German armed forces this morning. The distance from the nearest German port,


Cuxhaven, to Trondheim is nearly 700 miles; and, assuming that the expedition started immediately after the announcement of the mining operations within Norwegian territorial waters, they could not yet have arrived. There is, therefore, no doubt that the German plans for the invasion of Norway and Denmark were made and put into operation long before the Allied mining of Norwegian territorial waters.
It remains to say that His Majesty's Government have at once assured the Norwegian Government that, in view of the German invasion of their country, His Majesty's Government have decided forthwith to extend their full aid to Norway; and have intimated that they will fight the war in full association with them. Powerful units of the Navy are at sea. Hon. Members will realise that it would not be in the public interest to give details at this stage as to any operations in which they are now engaged. Needless to say, we are facing this new menace to the independence of free peoples in the closest collaboration with the French Government, whose forces are operating together with our own. I have no doubt that this further rash and cruel act of aggression will redound to Germany's disadvantage, and contribute to her ultimate defeat.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: I should like, first of all, to express what I believe is the feeling of all of us, of our sympathy with the people of Denmark and of Norway, two of the most highly civilised nations in Europe, who are now attacked by the most barbarous. It is clear that adherence to a policy of strict neutrality does not save any State from being attacked by the German Government. It is abundantly clear that never have the German Government accepted the neutrality of these countries as entitling them to safety, because it is clear that the plans for their invasion must have been prepared a long time ahead, ready to be put into operation whenever the German Government so decided. It is another instance of utterly brutal aggression.
At the present time, operations by our Fleet are, I understand, continuing to take place. We have no full reports. I think this House will be desirous before very long of a full discussion, under whatever circumstances may be most con-

venient, of the general bearing of these events on the conduct of the war. In the meanwhile, the Prime Minister has said that this country and France are offering their full aid to Norway. I hope that that aid will be given in full, and that it will be speedy, and that it will be effective. We must be in time, and we must do all we can to prevent the other free nations being brought under the Nazi yoke.

3.55 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I rise only to associate my hon. Friends and myself with the words, which have fallen from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, of sympathy with the victims of this gross and brutal act of aggression and of condemnation of this further German outrage. We certainly feel that the Government deserve our support and the support of the whole country in the decision which, the Prime Minister has told us, they have now taken to support Norway and Denmark, action which we hope will be prompt, swift and effective. In that action certainly, we, at any rate, shall support the Government.

3.56 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald South by: If there is any later news which can possibly be given before the House rises this evening, will an opportunity be taken to inform the House of that news?

The Prime Minister: I think we must be guided by circumstances. I am sure we shall be anxious to give the House all the news which we can possibly give at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Do the Government contemplate coming to the aid of the people of Denmark, as well as those of Norway; and, if so, have they made any such offer to the people of Denmark?

The Prime Minister: I cannot add anything to the statement I have made.

Mr. Cocks: Can the Prime Minister give us any information as to the fate of the Danish Government and Royal family?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I cannot.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Mander: Has the Prime Minister any information with regard to the alleged occupation by


Germany of Bergen and Narvik? It is obviously in the minds of Members as a whole that it is a remarkable thing that this expedition should have taken place while the British Fleet held the seas. No doubt, in due course some explanation of that will be given; but at the moment it is extremely puzzling. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] It is all very well to say that; but it is a very astonishing and startling thing, and it is just as well that it should be said. [Interruption.] I am asking whether it is true that they have gone to Narvik and Bergen.
The other point I want to put is this: When the Russian attack on Finland took place there was an immediate meeting of the Council of the League of Nations. The British Government took part in that meeting, and wholeheartedly supported the resolution that was passed against aggression. I am quite sure that the British Government would desire to treat all aggression alike, and the question I am putting to the Prime Minister on this point—[Interruption.]—after all, there is a very good precedent, and I wish to ask whether any proposal has been made from either Norwegian or other quarters that that precedent should be followed and similar action taken.

Sir William Davison: Has not the time gone past for passing any more resolutions?

4 p.m.

The Prime Minister: My information is that German forces have landed at Bergen. There have been some reports about a similar landing at Narvik, but I am very doubtful whether those are correct, and I am informed that there is another place with a very similar name in the South of Norway which it is very possible might have given rise to a misapprehension. As to the action of the Navy, I am sure the House will wish to reserve its judgment until it is in possession of further information and that it certainly would not wish to make criticisms upon the action of the Navy. With regard to the meeting of the League of Nations, no suggestion has yet been made to us about any meeting, and I would say generally that first things must come first. There are other things which I think would be more effective than summoning a meeting of the League of Nations.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I tried to impress on this House at the time of Munich, and now that disaster is threatening to come on the whole of Europe I want to ask, whether it is possible to get this House, representing as it does the people of the country seriously to discuss a complete change of Government in order to get a Government that will seek to save the young manhood of this country and bring the war to a speedy end, instead of concerning itself with spreading the war. [Interruption.] I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not the case that he himself declared in this House that war brings no gain either to the victim or—[Interruption.]

Mr. Neil Maclean: On a point of Order. It has always been the custom that no matter how much Members may disagree with an isolated Member who is stating his point of view, he should reecive not only the courtesy of the House, but order from Members. I am asking that you should preserve that order in the manner that you usually do when speeches are being made.

Mr. Speaker: I hope the hon. Member is not suggesting that I am not being fair. It is certainly true that an hon. Member is entitled to give his views, and I shall always preserve that right.

Mr. Gallacher: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister not aware that he himself stated in this House very deliberately that war brought no gain either to the victim or to the vanquished?

Mr. Holdsworth: Then why did Russia make war on Finland?

Mr. Gallacher: Never mind Russia. I am dealing with the Prime Minister, and the important question that I am raising is the menace to millions of the youth of this country and of Europe. I say that this House should take the serious responsibility of considering the possibility of a new and entirely different Government that would seek to bring the catastrophe to an end instead of desiring to spread it to other nations.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will make it clear to the House that while taking his position on what he said were


first things first, he will realise that there are a good many people, not only in this House but in the country, who will take the view that those nations which belong to the League of Nations have as great a responsibility in relation to the German aggression against Denmark and Norway as have our own country and France. Therefore, will he assure the House that while first things must come first, it is the intention of the Government, as far as they can, to ensure that this new aggression is considered by the Council of the League, bearing in mind that the League is not quite so helpless as some people think, having regard to the fact that the Council of the League did agree that the nations at Geneva should give some assistance to Finland against Russian aggression, and that it is possible for the help that this country is to give Denmark and Norway to be assisted at any rate by the other nations at Geneva? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore make it clear to the House that it is the intention of the Government to base their action upon the Covenant of the League and in co-operation with the other member States of the League of Nations?

The Prime Minister: I certainly hope that all members of the League will fully recognise their obligations to victims of aggression, but I could not at this moment bind myself to take any particular action about the League of Nations. As I say, first things must come first.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I rise to associate myself with the expressions of sympathy that have come from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the Liberal party with the people of Norway and of Denmark—probably the most pacific and the most civilised people in any part of the globe to-day. This war has developed in an extraordinary way. Up to date the sufferers—the Finns, the Norwegians, the Danes, the Poles—are people who had no primary responsibility for the outbreak whatever, and one can only think that if the present mood and temper of the world continue, world-wide chaos will be the consequence. While I do not associate myself with the proposal

of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that this is an appropriate moment for overthrowing the British Government, I do agree with him that there will have to be substantial changes in the general governmental system of this country and in the general outlook before the type of peace can be secured that I and my hon. Friends desire to see, but to-day I simply urge the Prime Minister not to be rushed into foolish courses or to allow temper and bellicosity to get the better of commonsense, which, after all, is the great characteristic of the British people, the characteristic which it can give to the world as something useful to the world in these terribly difficult times.

4.10 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: There is one other consideration to which I think the House should give one moment before we part with this discussion. We cannot always prevent acts of aggression now, as we know, but I think it is important that this nation should take a consistent moral attitude to all acts of aggression. In the case of the German attack on Poland, we used our full resources, and in the case of the attack on Finland we passed a resolution at the League and did give a certain amount of material help, while we were ready to give more. In this case now, we are going to do all we can, but there is another act of aggression which is going on in the world to-day, and that is the Japanese aggression against China. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Members to jeer at that. While agreeing about first things first, I none the less feel that those hon. Members who jeer should hold it in mind that this country will not understand it if the Government—[Interruption.] The people of this country will not understand it if the Government try to take one line in the case of one set of aggressors and an entirely different line in the case of another aggressor at the other end of the world.

Mr. Thorne: In view of the present temper of the House I think the best thing we can do is to adjourn now.

Motion, "That this House do now adjourn," by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATION) AMENDMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Duty of Agricultural Wages Board to fix national minimum wage).

4.13 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out from "shall," to "after," in line 8.
The Committee will remember that when the Second Reading of this Bill was moved nearly everyone who addressed the House pleaded for a national minimum to be fixed at the earliest possible moment, and I move this Amendment because I believe the present wording of this Clause is likely to cause some considerable delay. The Minister said, in his winding-up speech last week, that no doubt when we came to the Committee stage of the Bill we should have something to say with regard to the first part of Clause 1. The Committee will know that the Agricultural Wages Board, before fixing a national minimum, have at least three things to do. First of all, they are to have consultations with the agricultural wages committees, secondly, they are to consider general economic conditions, and, thirdly, they are to consider the conditions of the agricultural industry. Then it says that they shall proceed to fix a national minimum wage.
What is the real purpose of the Agricultural Wages Board consulting the different county agricultural wages committees? It cannot be for further information as to what is the wage at the present time, because that information is well known. I am not sure whether, in order to judge the general economic position of agriculture, they will consult these 47 committees. I would ask the House just to visualise how long it would take to consult them. What is to be the procedure, assuming that this Amendment is not carried? Does consultation mean that they will have to meet each of these 47 committees separately, or that the Agricultural Wages Board will submit to each agricultural wages committee a series of questions to which they would be

expected to supply answers, and from which they might then be in a better position to know exactly the national minimum wage to fix? It might be argued—and indeed I believe it will—that these committees will have a right to be consulted. I am looking at it from one point of view—and I think there is some force in that argument—that, in considering the economic position of agriculture, they will have to have some kind of consultation with these committees.
If the Central Wages Board fix a minimum which, in the opinion of any of the counties, is considered too high, the county committees under the terms of the Bill will have the right to appeal for a modification of the national minimum wage, so that to some extent they will be safeguarded even if the Amendment were carried. I want the Committee to believe that the whole purpose of putting down this Amendment is that we feel that it may have the effect of delaying the fixing of a national minimum, and we recognise, equally with hon. Members opposite, that in these days the production of essential foodstuffs is absolutely necessary, and that the position on the land from the angle of man-power is almost desperate, and there ought not to be the slightest delay in fixing a national minimum. It is because we believe that the wording of which we complain may lead to delay that I have moved this Amendment.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Riley: I beg to support the Amendment. If the words which we propose to leave out remain in the Bill, the Minister will be taking away from the Central Wages Board the very powers for which this Bill has very largely been designed. In this small Bill there are two distinct functions. First, all the increased powers of the Central Wages Board are more definitely defined in giving them the power to fix a minimum standard rate of wages for agricultural workers throughout the country. In the second place, there is a more clearly defined function for the county agricultural wages committees. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, if these words are left out of the Bill, the county committees will still have the power if there are special conditions in their areas, to appeal to the Central Wages Board to have those special conditions dealt with.


If these words are left in the Bill, it will be like taking away with one hand what has been put into the Bill by the other. It is giving a sort of analogous power to the committees to influence the Central Wages Board in performing their duty of fixing a general minimum standard rate of wages. It is up to the Minister really to give us a sound reason why these words should be left in the Clause. The practical reason why they ought to be taken out is that it seems to be inevitable that their retention will mean a very long delay. If the committees have to be consulted, as suggested by the wording in the Clause, one cannot see an end of such consultations, and on these grounds I hope that the Minister will see his way to recognise the desirability of accepting the Amendment.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I was critical on the Second Reading of the Bill on this particular proposal that we are now considering in the form of an Amendment. Now that the opinion of the House has been recorded in favour by a Second Reading of the Measure, it is my purpose, as I am sure it is the purpose of everybody in the Committee, to make the best of this Bill in the shortest possible time, in order that the greatest measure of encouragement to agricultural labour in this country can be given at the earliest moment. On that background, I would only like to make this one comment on the Amendment. If it is true that it is the main purpose of the Bill to give encouragement to agricultural labour to remain on the land, and give greater encouragement to labour to come on to the land, I cannot imagine anything more catastrophic than the absolutely flat description of a minimum without consultation, as suggested in this particular Amendment. I do not say that in criticism of Members of the Opposition in the least bit. I believe they have the same purpose at heart that I have, but it has been agreed by the Minister that the powers of the Central Wages Board up to the present have not been such as to encourage the collecting of information, because that particular Board has not been armed with executive powers.
I do not myself think that it will be fair to allow the Central Wages Board the responsibility of fixing a minimum wage without having had time and oppor-

tunity to collect all the necessary information from the different parts of the country as to what the effect of a minimum they fix would be on those particular districts. It would be catastrophic if they fixed the minimum at the wrong point. We recognise the danger of fixing it at any point—we are quite frank about that—but if they fixed it at a point other than the best point they could select, they would be doing grave harm to agricultural labour. It has been mentioned that they might fix the wage too low. I am not at all sure that in fixing a minimum wage we should think only of those areas which would wish to work below that minimum wage. One of the greatest difficulties about the minimum wage will come in those areas which are already working above the point at which the minimum will be fixed. We have to look to it to see that the Central Wages Board have information of the position in these areas. Unless the Central Wages Board are extremely careful, the fact that a minimum wage is fixed below the point at which some counties are working will act as a brake, or as a deterrent against future rises of wages in those already higher wage-paying counties, and that is a danger which nobody in any quarter of this Committee would wish to be brought into effect. We have to see that where a county can pay a higher wage, they should pay a higher wage, and if an increased wage is possible, it should be paid. We do not want to do anything which will slow down the process of wage increases where a wage increase is possible, but while I quite understand the point of view of the Mover and the Supporter of the Amendment, personally I would be extremely sorry if they pressed it, as I believe that it would act in exactly the opposite direction to that in which they hoped it would act.

4.25 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): I, too, hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. We have to get two things working in the Central Wages Board. One is clearly that of carrying out the scheme, and I am certain that the Central Wages Board will be fully aware of the wish of the House of Commons on that question. But surely also we want to get at the right figures, and we want real co-operation between the Central Wages Board and the county agricultural wages committees, which will


have a lot of functions to perform even under this Bill. Therefore the Committee would not desire to lose that wealth of experience which the county committees have gained for quite a long time, such as a knowledge of the conditions in their own counties, how the present wages are affecting their own counties, and so on. There is no desire at all on my part to regard the Act as a brake, but I feel that, in approaching a new subject, the Central Wages Board would want to get advice from the county committees. I do not think that there is the slightest need for contest between the Central Wages Board and the county agricultural wages committees.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said during the Second Reading that they would get from them—that is, the county committees—the fruits of their experience, and the facts that one obviously must get when they are gathered together and fixed at a centre. That is the sort of thing that we have in mind. Exactly how the Central Board will set about their task, I do not want to try to lay down here. One can see that there will be one or two ways in which they can do it. They can make their own determination, and send it down to the county committees and say, "We would like to have your observations on this. This is the calculation at which we have arrived. And now let us hear what you think about it." Or else they may say to these committees, "We would like your advice on the general question and your observations upon it." In any case I think that they will probably feel bound to do it, whether or not it is provided for in the Bill. The other point I wish to make is that this is not just a temporary Measure, and it is not going to be the only determination which that Board will have to make. If you are to have an alteration later on and a new examination, then the Central Wages Board will want to know what has happened in the counties arising from the first examination, and it will be necessary for them to have that experience and to consult again with the county agricultural committees.

Mr. T. Smith: Supposing the Central Wages Board found that one or two committees were absolutely obstructing

and causing delay, would that debar the Central Wages Board from getting on with the work of fixing a national minimum?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir. I do not want to take the legal view, but if the Central Wages Board actually sent a letter or something like that to them, then that would be consultation. It is up to the county committees. Obviously, one does not want to see one or two county committees obstruct the whole work. It is not the intention of this Bill that obstruction should be allowed, but I still cannot think the Committee would want to do away with all the wealth of experience which is there, and I hope they will trust the Central Wages Board to act speedily and sensibly, get the co-operation and help of these county committees, and not start on the wrong foot.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) made out a good case for this Amendment, which was amply supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), but both the cases they put forward were not nearly so effective in support of the Amendment as the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. In fact, he proved much more effective in showing the absolute non-necessity for the words embodied in the Bill. He told us that the Central Wages Board will be bound to consult with the wages committees and collect their experience.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Have consultations.

Mr. Williams: I think such consultations as may be deemed to be necessary by the Central Wages Board would take place without delaying words being embodied in the Bill. I cannot conceive of the Central Wages Board fixing a national minimum without in some way contacting the county wages committees, but while the Wages Board are fulfilling the conditions laid down here, and while considering the general economic conditions and special conditions affecting the agricultural industry, such information, advice and guidance that they may require from the county committees could be made available for the Board. There is another point: the Central Wages


Board will be made up of six representatives of labour and six representatives of employers, and it is fair to assume that the 12 members together are in some way closely identified with the activities of the county wages committees.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: There are more than six counties.

Mr. Williams: I know there are something like 47 counties, but the representatives of employers and employed, particularly the representatives of employed, very often s operate in four, five or six counties, so that their accumulated knowledge of the position will be available for the Central Wages Board. I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see the wisdom of deleting these words and leaving the Central Wages Board with power to consider general economic conditions and the special conditions affecting agriculture, and acquiring such knowledge as they may deem necessary, and not insist that they consult every county wages committee in the country, one after the other. They may find that some county or counties were hesitating and that it would hold up the fixation of the original national minimum. My support for this Amendment is not because I feel that there would be months of delay, but because I realise the seriousness of the position in the country to-day. I know that labourers have been leaving at an alarming rate; we cannot afford to lose any more. The sooner this Bill is in operation, and a national wage fixed, the sooner shall we prevent the continuation of their departure from the countryside, which we have been witnessing not only during the past 20 years but, particularly, during the past six or seven months. If only as a psychological concession to rural areas, I hope that, even now, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. John Morgan: After hearing the Minister, I felt my uneasiness grow about the retention of these words in the Clause. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did say that whether they are

in the Bill or not, the Central Wages Board will in fact consult these various agricultural committees. Therefore, any words that can be removed as being unnecessary should be removed, because they have an effect upon the Central Wages Board, and in view of the permanent character of this legislation it might give at some future time, when there are, perhaps, less urgent circumstances, a chance to certain areas of the country to develop delaying tactics in regard to the minimums that may have been fixed, either up or down. In view of the assurance which the Minister has given that the Board will function satisfactorily, I fail to see any real objection to removing these words, unless they will have some effect. That effect is what we fear. I cannot see what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's objection is unless it is that he wishes to retain them in order to give the county committees some power or influence on the decision taken, and I must, therefore, fully support the Amendment which has been put forward.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I want to ask the Minister to be a little more explicit about what these words, "after consultation," mean. The words in the Bill impose upon the Board an obligation which it cannot itself of its own power and volition discharge. It cannot consult with any one of the county committees unless a county committee chooses to consult with the Board. It seems that the insistence on the inclusion of these words is very unfortunate indeed, because there is no equality and balance on the other side. In view of what the Minister has said, he would put the Board in a much happier position if, with the words out, he left the Board to make such consultations as they could before arriving at a final decision. To leave them in seems to be contrary to what I think is the sensibleness of legislation.

Question put, "That the word 'after' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 115.

Division No. 58.]
AYES.
[4.40 p.m.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Bennett, Sir E. N.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Bernays, R. H.
Brass, Sir W.


Albery, Sir Irving
Blair, Sir R.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.


Assheton, R.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Bossom, A. C.
Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Boulton, W. W.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Beechman, N. A.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)




Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Higgs, W. F.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Holmes, J. S.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Butcher, H. W.
Horabin, T. L.
Rankin, Sir R.


Cary, R. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Channon, H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hunter, T.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Colman, N. C. D.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Joel, D. J. B.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Robertson, D.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (Wst'r S. G'gs)
Keeling, E. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lambert, R. Hon. G.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Davidson, Viscountess
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Levy, T.
Selley, H. R.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Liddall, W. S.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindsay, K. M.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Denville, Alfred
Lipson, D. L.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Doland, G. F.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Donner, P. W.
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Smithers, Sir W.


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Somerset, T.


Drewe, C.
Loftus, P. C.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lyons, A. M.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Duncan, J. A. L. (Kensington, N.)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Eckersley, P. T.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
McKie, J. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Magnay, T.
Sutcliffe, H.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Taylor, Captain C. S.


Etherton, Ralph
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Foot, D. M.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Touche, G. C.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Train, Sir J.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Goldie, N. B.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Gower, Sir R. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Gridley Sir A. B.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Grimston, R. V
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Hambro, A. V.
Peake, O.
White, H. Graham


Hannah, I. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Harbord, Sir A.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Harland, H. P.
Procter, Major H. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Pym, L. R.



Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Radford, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Mr. Munro and Major Sir James


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Edmondson.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Dalton, H.
Isaacs, G. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Jagger, J.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
John, W.


Ammon, C. G.
Dobbie, W.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Ede, J. C.
Kirkwood, D.


Banfield, J. W.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Lathan, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lawson, J. J.


Barr, J.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Leach, W.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Frankel, D.
Leonard, W.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Gallacher, W.
Leslie, J. R.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Gardner, B. W.
Lunn, W.


Benson, G.
Gibbins, J.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Broad, F. A.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
McEntee, V. La T.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
McGhee, H. G.


Burke, W. A.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
McGovern, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
MacLaren, A.


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Maclean, N.


Cocks, F. S.
Hardie, Agnes
Mainwaring, W. H.


Collindridge, F.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Mander, G. le M.


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Marshall, F.


Daggar, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Martin, J. H.







Mathers, G.
Riley, B.
Tinker, J. J.


Maxton, J.
Ritson, J.
Tomlinson, G.


Messer, F.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Walkden, A. G.


Montague, F.
Shinwell, E.
Walker, J.


Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Silkin, L.
Watkins, F. C.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Silverman, S. S.
Welsh, J. C.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sloan, A.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Muff, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Paling, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Wilmot, John


Parker, J.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Pearson, A.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Thorne, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ridley, G.
Thurtle, E.
Mr. Adamson and Mr. Groves.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out from "after," to "after," in line 8, and to insert:
giving notice to the agricultural wages com-committees and considering any representations made by them and.
There is no one who wishes to see the processes under the Bill speeded up more than I, but I think it would be very unfortunate if county agricultural committees were entirely ignored. I have tried to find words which will express what I actually mean in the way of consultation. "Consultation" is a very vague word, and the Minister did not make quite clear what he had in mind. He suggested that the obligation as to consultation might be carried out by the Central Wages Board, by simply writing a circular letter. I do not think that could ever be described as consultation. I have tried to find words which express the amount of interchange of views between county committees and the Central Wages Board which seems reasonable. I was unable to vote for the previous Amendment, because I think that to give no direction for consultation of any sort or kind is a mistake. If you have local committees, they should have some functions to perform, and I would point out to hon. Members above the Gangway that there are as many representatives of the workers on county committees as there are of employers, and if the Central Wages Board are to consider the actual rate, whether it is 40s., or 45s., or as high as 50s., surely it is to the interests of the workers' representatives that they should be able to suggest what the figure should be. I should have thought that some opportunity for consultation and some opportunity for the workers' representatives in the counties to put their case would have been welcomed by hon. Members above the Gangway.
If the Bill is to be operated, it must be with the good will of employers and workers. Some form of local consultation must take place, and my Amendment suggests what I think is the right amount of consultation. The Minister has said that there may be more than one revision of the national minimum wage. Therefore, the county committees should be notified when a revision is going to be made. I have given effect to that in the first part of the Amendment. Secondly, the county committees should have the right to make representations which shall be considered by the Central Wages Board. The Amendment carries out that object. The onus is on the Minister of Agriculture, if he cannot see his way to accept the Amendment, to explain how it does not provide sufficient consultation. He may say that he wants to leave the thing vague and give the Central Wages Board every opportunity of finding out the opinion of the country. If he says that, I shall have to regret the vote I have given because that would, in my opinion, be delaying the matter. I do not believe he wants to delay the processes and that he will not prefer words which are clear and definite to his own vague and indefinite words. In any case, when the Bill is carried, you will have to have representations from the county committees. Presumably they will come in within three weeks, certainly within a month, and then a decision of the Central Wages Board can be given within another week. There is no need for delay if the procedure indicated in the Amendment is carried. I hope the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment, which will clarify and simplify the Bill and not detract from it in any way.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. J. Morgan: I rather like this form of Amendment. I think it is better than the previous one. Not being sure of the


position, and feeling that the Clause as it stands might easily give rise to circumstances in the future which would lead to deep controversy, I supported the first Amendment. But this Amendment meets the Minister's position and enables him to give a satisfactory answer on the point. I have no intention of preventing the Central Wages Board properly consulting county committees. That would destroy and disturb a very effective piece of work. The Amendment does meet the real position which will arise, and prevents any misunderstanding in the future when things are different, and when, in a piece of permanent legislation, we may regret having left the matter so vague as it is in the Bill.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the two hon. Members who have supported the Amendment. Their intention of clarifying the Minister's proposal is obviously good, but I read into the Amendment something which is restrictive. It would imply, to my mind, that the Central Wages Board would send out a figure and that, having given notice of the figure, they would accept representations. That may be one way of doing it. But there are other ways of doing it, as were indicated by the Minister of Agriculture. I do not want to restrict the Minister in the advice that he gives to the Central Wages Board. Obviously, he must give advice to them in this new sphere of activity, and I do not want to restrict the advice that he gives or the action which the Central Wages Board may take. I can see a situation in which possibly the Central Wages Board might adopt the second alternative mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture. The county wages committee might be asked to frame proposals on which a minimum wage will be based, but if we accept the Amendment, it will debar the higher paying counties from asking whether, before considering the fixing of a minimum wage, the Board would take into consideration certain aspects which affect only that group. If we accept the Amendment, we shall rule out any representations from local committees before any figure is mentioned at all, and at once you get into the minds of county committees some idea that, after all, whatever advice they give does not very much matter, and that it

is hardly worth their while to consider it seriously. These things have to be considered seriously. I think hon. Members will agree with me in that. While I agree with the purpose of the Amendment to the extent that we want to get something on which both the Agricultural Wages Board and the county committees can advise us, I think the effect of the words in the Amendment would be in the opposite direction.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: I support the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing). I feel that the Amendment is a restrictive one. It defines the method of consultation and appears to narrow the subject of consultation, and for that reason, I am opposed to it. I can imagine a situation arising in future in which the Agricultural Wages Board desire to fix the minimum wage at a certain figure, and are in agreement with the agricultural wages committee that that should be done, but both the Board and the county committee then consulting together and discovering that that minimum cannot be paid because the state of the industry will not allow it. Therefore, I want the widest measure of consultation in order that the Central Board may discuss all possibilities and, if necessary, discuss proposals to be put before the Government so as to enable the industry to pay the wage which they think desirable.

5.2 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) has put the objections to this Amendment in very good language. I feel, too, that it would be unsafe to try to prescribe the actual method by which the Board should carry out this consultation. Having decided, as we have, that there should be consultation, I am convinced that the best way of dealing with the matter is to allow the Board to find out what is the best method in any given circumstances. Circumstances may differ from time to time. The Board may want a different type of consultation in six months' time or a year's time, and I think we can trust them to find out the quickest and best method of consultation. If we were to insert the words of the Amendment, we should lay down rules of a more or less formal character which would limit and be harmful to the purpose which all


of us have in mind. We have to visualise the different sets of circumstances that may arise. I think the Committee would be well advised to leave the provision in general terms and allow the Board to find the best and most appropriate method in any given case. Therefore, I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Duty of agricultural wages committees to conform to minimum wage.)

5.4 p.m.

Miss Ward: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, to leave out Subsection (3).
I am very glad that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture mentioned the other day that the county committees have an obligation to women agricultural workers, and that a statutory obligation is being placed on those committees to examine the wages paid to women workers in relation to the settled national minimum. I understand that the last census showed that there were over 55,000 registered women agricultural workers, comprising all types of workers; and I am very glad that so far my right hon. and gallant Friend has seen fit to include them under the provisions of the Bill, because it is true to say that all the arguments that were used on the introduction of the Bill can be used in relation to women workers as well as to male workers. What I am not sure about is how far the provisions of the Bill will apply to women workers, because there is no precise definition.

The Chairman: I must remind the hon. Lady that we are not now discussing the Bill. I called her in order that she might move an Amendment to leave out Subsection (3) of Clause 2. All that she has said so far has been entirely in favour of the Sub-section remaining in the Bill.

Miss Ward: I assure you, Sir Dennis, that in a minute or two I shall explain why I think Sub-section (3) should be deleted. I was trying to be nice to the Minister about the steps he has already taken to encourage women workers in agriculture, but if a little more acidity in my voice would be acceptable, I shall have pleasure in changing my tone. I

have been told that I am sometimes a little too acid towards Ministers, and I thought that I would reform, and move my Amendment in rather slowed-down terms. I think this Sub-section should be deleted because adequate protection is not given to women agricultural workers. Although the county committees have to examine women's wages in relation to the national minimum, I do not see that any statutory obligation is put upon them, when they have come to a decision, to send their decision to the Agricultural Wages Board for confirmation and approval as is to be done in the case of adult male workers. Although the machinery provided in Clause 2 covers women workers, they are not to have the advantages of the machinery which is provided for adult male workers, and the national minimum that is provided for in Clause 1. This Sub-section has caused great dissatisfaction to the women who are engaged in agriculture. They feel that for a very long time they have been regarded as casual workers, they do not think that the provisions of this Clause give any encouragement to those women who are being trained at agricultural colleges which are subsidised by the Treasury, and they do not feel that their position is being really bettered under the Bill owing to there being no precise definition.

The Chairman: I will try to say to the hon. Lady what I have to say in a pleasant voice, but I am afraid that I have something unpleasant to say to her. Not a single sentence of what she has said has had anything to do with this particular Sub-section. She appears to want to amend the Agricultural Wages Act, 1924.

Miss Ward: I thank you, Sir Dennis, for being so nice about it. In dealing with this matter, I see the difficulty that there is in intervening on a matter about which one has no knowledge. I could challenge the world in the industrial field, because I should be certain of what I was talking about. I have been asked by the women agricultural workers to intervene in this Debate on their behalf, and I do not think they will appreciate how difficult it is to keep within the Rules of Order. Sub-section (3) reads:
It shall be the duty of every agricultural wages committee to have regard to the national minimum wage, not only in fixing minimum


rates of wages for men of full age employed whole time by the week or any longer period in agriculture, but also in fixing minimum rates of wages for any other class of workers, but without prejudice to their power to fix for workers of any class rates higher than are necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act.
If I remember rightly, my right hon. and gallant Friend, in speaking in the Second Reading Debate last Wednesday, defined "any other class of workers" as covering women. The reason I ask for the deletion of the Sub-section is that it does not define the precise relationship of women's wages to men's wages, having regard to the national minimum. If I speak much longer, I feel that I shall trespass on your courtesy, Sir Dennis, and on the Rules of Order, but I hope that the Minister, who has a wide vision, will know what I mean to say. Therefore, I leave it to him to make the position crystal clear. I am afraid that if he does not find some way of assuring us that under this Sub-section women agricultural workers will have the same kind of protection as men—it is true that they will have their conditions improved in order to encourage them in their work—although we shall not be able to do anything on this Bill, we shall have to make representations in regard to this discrimination against women. We feel very strongly that this is the time to encourage both men and women in the agricultural industry, and the terms of this Sub-section, by not defining precisely the relationship of women's wages to men's wages, having regard to the national minimum, discriminate against women and leave them in an unsatisfactory position. I hope the Minister will be able to point out that I am entirely wrong, and that women agricultural workers will realise that the Government have at heart their interests as well as the interests of the male workers.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I am afraid that the Amendment of the hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) would rob all agricultural workers who are not adult men, all those on piecework, all those who are seasonal workers, and all women agricultural workers of the only privilege they have under the Bill. Only under this Sub-section, in the category described as "any other class of workers," would women come under the

Bill. The other thing that I want to say is that in the original Act of 1924, the Preamble catered for "workers in agriculture," which includes women. This Bill deals with "men employed in agriculture." Therefore, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman needs a lesson, all that he has to do is to go to the Labour Government's Act of 1924. He will find that in that Act we dealt with both men and women, whereas in this Bill it is only Sub-section (3) of this Clause that makes it possible for county committees to do for women something in relation to what the Agricultural Wages Board is able to do for men.

Miss Ward: I would point out to the hon. Member that I raised the matter in this way because it seemed that the only way in which I could bring to the notice of the House the question of women agricultural workers was by putting down such an Amendment.

The Chairman: As a matter of fact, the hon. Lady did it only as a result of the unjustified leniency of the Chair.

Miss Ward: I am very grateful to you, Sir Dennis.

5.15 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I admit that it is rather difficult to answer the hon. Lady's questions, but I think I realise what is in her mind, and possibly the best way of explaining the matter is to state how this Sub-section will work. This goes back to the main principle of the Bill, and I assure the Committee that when we considered this whole question of wages and the setting up of a Central Wages Board, we had women workers very much in mind. As I tried to explain in my Second Reading speech, the actual minimum wage to be fixed by this Board is not an automatically operative wage. The county committee can, under certain conditions, fix the wage rate at a higher level or may apply to the Board to make it lower. What we tried to do was to give a guiding line to the county committees and to say to them, "You cannot go below that line," but leaving the county committees free to work in their own districts and, if need be, to go higher. Naturally that datum line would be worked on, in fixing the rates of the vast majority of workers who would be adult male workers.
We have not dealt, it is true, with others such as juveniles and women. It


will be for the county committees to consider the question of the wages of women workers, and we say in this Bill that the committee shall have regard to any alterations which may take place in the national minimum. They will have to try to relate to the conditions in their own areas the movement of wages both for men and for women and also for juveniles. Bearing in mind the main purpose of the Bill, which is to give a guide instead of fixing an automatically operated rate, I think women workers can be satisfied that they will get fair play, and I sincerely hope that in the future it will be possible, through the operation of this provision, to get more women workers back on to the land. I regret very much the disappearance of so many women workers from the land, and I hope that the necessary encouragement for their return to agricultural work will be provided by this Bill.

Miss Ward: In view of the Minister's statement, and as I am always trustful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (4).
I cannot bring myself into such a complaisant condition of mind regarding this Amendment, as the hon. Member for Walsall (Miss Ward) has shown in regard to her Amendment. This is the last Amendment in the Committee stage of the Bill, the presentation of which must have given great satisfaction to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Bill has been welcomed in every part of the Committee because it gives the hope, at last, of some uniformity in the fixing of agricultural wages, and it may result in relieving heavy anxiety in many homes. Because the Bill is so generally welcome, we feel it a pity that the Minister should comprise within it a provision which seems likely to hamper its effectiveness. I want the Minister, first, to explain what is the purpose of advertising these rates in the counties, and, secondly, to examine the consequence of doing so.
By the rejection of the two Amendments which were moved in relation to Clause 1, the Minister now secures that before the national minimum is fixed, there will be consultation with each of

the 47 committees. Therefore, presumably, the national minimum figure will be fixed as a result of the advice tendered to the Board by experienced members of the county committees. Surely the county committees are themselves, as to their own county areas, sufficiently representative of county agricultural opinion. It seems superfluous after having consulted with the county committees to proceed to advertise the intentions of the Board to the farming community in the counties represented by those committees. The effect of doing so is even less defensible than the presumed purpose. It will be to present those agricultural interests which object to the primary purpose of the Bill, or object to the minimum figure fixed, with an opportunity of appealing against the figure, of hampering the work of the Board and delaying the operation of the rate itself. Those interests, I suggest, are interests which the Minister should be the last to desire to consult and the last who should get any opportunity of placing restrictions on the work of the Board. The necessity for advertising does not exist after the county committees have been consulted, as provided for in the Bill, and the effect of this Sub-section will be restrictive and hampering and will injure the purpose which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind.

5.23 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I feel that this Amendment has been moved under a misunderstanding. I am not sure whether the hon. Member is aware of the fact that under Sub-section (6) of Section 2 of the Act of 1924, committees are required to give notice before fixing or altering minimum wage rates for their areas. What they generally do is to advertise in two or three papers circulating in the area, so that farmers and farm workers can see what the rates are. We thought it only right, when the national minimum has been laid down and when the county committees make their own determinations—and they still have to publish them under the 1924 Act—that they should include in that publication a statement of what the national minimum wage was so that workers and farmers could see and compare the final results of the county wages committees' deliberations with the datum line of the national minimum wage. It would not make any difference to the working of the Measure if this Amendment were accepted, and I think the Com-


mittee will agree that it is only right and proper that workers and employers should be able to compare the national minimum wage with what their own county committee has finally determined.

Mr. Ridley: I took some care to read the appropriate provisions of the 1924 Act. They make it incumbent on county committees to advertise the rates which those committees fix. The position in regard to the Board and the national minimum is that the Board has power to consult the county committees. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that this provision would not make any difference to the working of the machinery of the Measure, but surely it would enable representations to be made against the rate by various organisations, designed to hamper the working of the Measure and the achievement of its main object.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am advised that it would still be necessary, even if this Amendment were carried, for the county committees to publish, and in any case I suggest that the publication of the national minimum wage for purposes of comparison is a desirable precaution from the workers' point of view. If in any given county they saw that the wage rate was to be lower than the national minimum, they would, naturally, desire to make representations to the county wages committee, and the committee would have to consider those representations. I suggest that it would work unfairly if they had not the information on which to make a comparison and form their opinion, and I think this may well prove a valuable provision to the workers as well as to the employers.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must have omitted to examine Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 with its proviso, otherwise I think he would be obliged to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) that Sub-section (4) can be made into a delaying provision. What will be the machinery of this Measure if Sub-section (4) is retained. First, the Central Wages Board must consult the agricultural wages committees before they proceed to fix their national minimum. Then they proceed under Clause 2 which reads as follows:

It shall be the duty of the agricultural wages committee for every county, within the prescribed period after receiving notification that the national minimum wage has been fixed or altered, to reconsider the minimum rates of wages fixed by them under the principal Act.
Then there is the proviso:
Provided that the regulations prescribing the period within which the duties imposed by this Sub-section upon agricultural wages committees are to be performed, shall make provision for any necessary extension of that period in cases where a committee decide to make representations to the Board in accordance with the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section one of this Act.
There you have made provision, first, that the Central Wages Board shall consult the county committees and, second, that having acquired all the knowledge they require, they shall proceed to establish a minimum. They prescribe the minimum and lay down a period within which the county committees shall comply with it. But should any county wages committee desire to make representation to the Central Board because the minimum wage is too low or too high, the prescribed period can be extended to enable them to make such representations.
In Sub-section (4), which calls into being Sub-section (6) of Section 2 of the original Act, the same obligation applies when fixing a national minimum. Subsection (4) reads:
Among the matters of which agricultural wages committees are required by Sub-section (6) of Section two of the principal Act to give notice before fixing, cancelling or varying any minimum rate of wages there shall be included the national minimum wage.
Therefore, when a national minimum wage is fixed, Sub-section (6) of Section 2 of the original Act comes into being. The original Act reads:
Before fixing, cancelling or varying any minimum rate, the committee shall give such notice as may be prescribed of the rate which they propose to fix or of their proposal to cancel the rate or of the proposed variation of the rate as the case may be,….
But they have already done that under Clause 1, Sub-section (1). It seems to me that under Clause 2, Sub-section (1), in prescribing a period where a county wages committee has a right to make representations to the Central Board, the Central Wages Board have power to extend the period. Clearly this third condition appears to be wholly unnecessary. I hope that I have made what appears to be a complex problem clear; but, if


all three conditions are fulfilled, there must inevitably be an unnecessary waste of time. There is the first consultation, and once it has taken place and a minimum wage has been decided upon, county wage committees are given time to make representations to the Central Board. They cannot, however, make representations to the Central Board unless the wages committees know the minimum which has been fixed. Then there is this third condition, compelling them again to advertise the minimum wage, allowing objection to be made, and the Central Board are called upon to examine this objection and vary the minimum if they deem fit. Although I think there is some point in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's submission about the first consultation between the Central Wages Board and the county committees I am afraid I cannot find any justification at all for this third condition.

5.33 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Clause 2 has nothing to do with objection to the national minimum wage. It merely means that at the bottom of the page information will be given that the national minimum is so and so; there is no intention of inviting objection. It is merely included in the advertisement for the sake of allowing people to compare the final result of the county committees wage with the national minimum wage.

Mr. T. Williams: Are we to understand that in the Regulations that are made under Clause 2, Sub-section (1), intimating that a minimum has been fixed, and specifying a period whereby the county wages committee must comply with that decision, advertising will take place at that time, and not in a subsequent period beyond the prescribed period?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am not absolutely certain when the advertising comes in, but I will check on that. I repeat that this is merely for information and not in order to invite objection to it.

Mr. Ridley: You are speaking now of Clause 2?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Yes. It is merely an indication to the persons concerned so that they can compare the committee's proposals with the national minimum wage.

Mr. Ridley: Surely the Minister is arriving at a conclusion which is unfounded? The provisions in the principal Act make it incumbent on the county committees to advertise in order that objections may be made.

Mr. T. Williams: May I read the appropriate Section of the principal Act again? It is:
Before fixing, cancelling or varying any minimum rate, the committee shall give such notice as may be prescribed of the rate which they propose to fix or of their proposal to cancel the rate or of the proposed variation of the rate as the case may be, and of the manner in which and the time within which objections to the proposal may be lodged, not being less than fourteen days from the date of the notice, and shall consider any objections to the proposal which may be lodged within the time mentioned in the notice.
From that, I think, either we are suffering from profound confusion, or otherwise, if we are not confused, there will be unnecessary delay.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The national minimum wage will not be included in the notice as part of the county committees' proposals. It is to be on the advertisement to show what is the national minimum, but it will not be among the proposals as to the rates which the county committees give notice of their intention to fix. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that a county wages committee proposal is that the rate should be 3s. a week above the national minimum. That would be a proposal on which there could be representation from the employer or the worker. In the advertisement it would be shown that the national minimum figure was and that the county wage would be X plus 3s. It will really make no difference in time. The advertisement merely clarifies to the worker how his wage is related to the national minimum.

Mr. Ridley: I think we are in substantial agreement about what we want, although I do not think we are in agreement as to what the proviso means in its present form. As I understand the right hon. and gallant Gentleman his view is that the advertising provided for here will be merely an announcement of what the county committee intends to do, and that that will be the end of it. But it cannot be the end of it with the provisions of the original Act, the appropriate Section of which has been read by my hon. Friend.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The county committees will not be publishing proposals for a national minimum wage. They will simply be giving opportunity for objections to the rates they propose to fix for their areas, and this will be after the national minimum wage has been fixed.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SPECIAL ENACTMENTS (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL [Lords].

As amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Ordered,
That the Committee on National Expenditure do consist of Thirty-two Members:

Ordered,
That Mr. Erskine Hill, Sir Arnold Gridley, Mr. Lipson and Mr. Watkins be added to the Committee."—[Mr. Grimston.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Grimston.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes before Six o'Clock